Re: [tied] Re: Prenasalization, not ejectives cause of Winter's law?

On 2006-09-28 07:48, tgpedersen wrote:

> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
>> (OInd. str.nóti).
>
> str.nó:ti, says Pokorny ('eig. zur Basis streu-).

Skt. /o, e/ are always long, so there's no need to mark their length
explicitly. Some authors do, most don't. I actually mistyped the quoted
form slightly: after a rhotic the nasal should be retroflex (str.n.óti).

>> The precise nature of the relationship has not been
>> worked out yet -- we have no consistent theory of PIE "root
>> extensions".
>
>
> I don't think Skt. str.ná:-ti is much of a help in deciding between
> *str.néh3- with infix -n- and *str.néh2- with loss of -h3-(?) and
> suffixes -n- and -eh2-.

So why does Old Indic consistently form -na:- presents from roots which
otherwise show a final laryngeal? I don't see any grounds for
reconstructing a PIE verb-forming suffix complex like *-nah2-. As far as
the comparative evidence goes, *-nah2- occurs only in nasal presents
formed from roots with a final *-h2.

Piotr